Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stuart Mowat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nom hasn't even bothered with searching for sources as these have all been nominated within seconds of each other. No objections to speedy renomination by anyone except the nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Stuart Mowat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entry in Who's Who (UK) passes WP:LAWYERS. Graemp (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of Circuit judge's and District judges, while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) was de facto notable in itself. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here,here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mowat's entry in Who's Who has nothing to do with circuit judges or Orders of the British Empire. Graemp (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to note. First, consensus is that an entry in Who's Who does not confer automatic notability, but it is a good indication that an individual may be notable. Second, consensus is that the MBE or OBE do not confer inherent notability (although taken together with other honours etc they may do), as they are very common, but the much rarer CBE (or higher award) does, since it is only awarded to people deemed exceptionally notable in their fields (and remember that just because someone is in an occupation not in the public eye and you may not have heard of them does not make them non-notable). If an individual is considered notable enough by the government to be honoured with a CBE then who are we at Wikipedia, which has articles on every minor pop star, sports or TV personality who may have been dribbled (and drivelled) about by fanboys/girls on the internet, to disagree? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was a Sheriff Principal who presided over the fatal accident inquiry that reported in February 1991, following the Lockerbie bombing. He passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As explained by others above. Ross-c (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.